Posted by: graemebird | March 21, 2011

Anyone Can Refute The Big Bang

People have no idea just how bad public sector science is.  In this screed from elsewhere you will see a total refutation for the big bang. Anyone can explain this refutation in two minutes. But in public sector science you are an infidel unless you believe without question. The galaxies don’t run out in any particular direction. So where did the universe start?:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Let me illustrate how backwards that is. Many leftists are press-ganging in the bad science of “global warming” so that they can promote globalism, ration energy, control all aspects of our lives, and so forth. Whereas you seem to be press-ganging in the even worse science of the big bang as a way of countering the global warming fraud. So where is the search for TRUTH in all this press-ganging?

The problem with 20th century physics has been to do with bad epistemology and the cult of personality. The big bang theory is based on the Hubble doctrine. And the Hubble doctrine goes like this: Since doppler causes red shift ONLY doppler causes red shift ..

Now this is not only illogical. Its not only wrong. It cannot be right, given the particle soup that we take to be space.

The big bang started off bad, since one ought not build on one line of evidence. You need to have at least three lines of evidence to build on. But the big bang theory continued to get more ridiculous as the evidence refuting it rolled in. The other problem with methodology was the failure to have competing theories on the fly all the time. Since when the evidence against the big bang rolled in, it would then have been recognised as such. The Hubble doctrine itself was debunked in 1968.

You can debunk the big bang yourself just be noting that there are stars and galaxies in all directions, going as far back as the technology allows. Whereas had there been a starting location, when we got back a certain way, the galaxies would be in one direction only. Thats the big bang finished as a theory right there. But public servants don’t know what a refutation is any more.

When the news came in that the universe was accelerating in its expansion …. this ought to have been taken as a refutation. But no. They just keep building on earlier mistakes. Thats the public service for you.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. a rolling thunder of bullshitartistry by ectomorphic mathematical theologians, cuz. no convergence at all. how did we get to this state of affairs?

    • 1. Zakly
      2. No short answer.

  2. Its just stolen money financing and bad epistemology. The idea that gets a headstart gets locked in. Whereas there ought to be many ideas being worked in parallel until you know the answer. It goes further to where Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr are made heroes of. Fables are constructed of them. And everyone with alternate ideas are called cranks.

    It would be easy to make real progress in science. But you would be relying on the cranks. Its not a one-man job to correct things, and the first thing you do is cast around for alternate ideas that are there already. Progress would be easy because the process of science is easy. More sweat then brilliance. The 20th century put alleged brilliance ahead of proper methodology.

  3. right,

    Albert was overrated wasn’t he? perhaps even a fraud

  4. Oh I wouldn’t go that far. A better physics fraternity would have channeled his abilities productively rather than worshiping his flights of fancy. Its inevitable that he’s going to get a caning before his ideas are properly ridiculed. But I myself don’t want to go in for that sort of thing.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    The observable universe is probably a lot smaller than what the mainstream is saying. A lot smaller, a lot more compact, and if its expanding, its probably expanding at a pretty slow and steady pace. Hawking is no natural philosopher. He’s a mathematician. He’s not talking about the universe as such. He’s talking about maths models.

    The sociology of science is such that they just keep building on error. Anyone who isn’t building on error is an unknown or a known “crank.” This is the public service at work.

  6. So what exactly is the alternative theory you advocate?

    • Advocate for what? There was no big bang. Thats a fact. The big bang didn’t happen.

      Before I go on to say how I think the universe works I have to see what is going on in your mind. Probably we cannot find ultimate answers. Its important to understand and lock in the fact that the big bang is an irrational creation fantasy. You may be saying that if I don’t come up with a really good answer, then the big bang could be true. The big bang is proven wrong, quite distinct from what I come up with next. Supposing I come up with a good answer. The big bang is still wrong. Supposing I come up with an answer that you consider implausible. The big bang is still wrong in that case also.

  7. Bird, what is your explanation for one of the best evidences supporting the big bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation?

    THATS NOT EVIDENCE FOR THE BIG BANG. THERE WAS NO BIG BANG. RATHER ITS A FEATURE OF LIGHT. THE TWO DON’T LOGICALLY GO TOGETHER. THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT. ITS MERELY AN INCANTATION. PEOPLE KNEW PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG EMBARRASSMENT THAT SPACE WOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTE ZERO IN TEMPERATURE.

    THERE IS SIMPLY NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. THIS IS JUST IRRATIONAL BANGERS CLUTCHING AT STRAWS.

    • I’M NOT DENYING ANYTHING. THE FACT IS THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED. ITS NOT ONLY THE GREATEST EMBARRASSMENT OF MODERN SCIENCE. ITS ALSO THE LEAST CREDIBLE CREATION MYTH EVER. EVEN LESS CREDIBLE THAN CREATION MYTHS INVOLVING GIANT TORTOISES. THE BIG BANG IS LESS CREDIBLE THAN ANY OF THOSE.

      I’M NOT FUCKING EXAGGERATING. THE BIG BANG IS ALSO ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE BAD BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE.

      MORE INFAMOUS THAN UN SOLDIERS RAPING BLACK CHICKS. BUT REALLY ALONG THE SAME LINES AS FAR AS PUBLIC SERVICE SCREWING THINGS UP AND HURTING PEOPLE IS CONCERNED.

  8. shut the fuck up before I pop you one in the guts, Cambria. You aren’t fit to so much as lick my cozzie bro’s steel capped boots, you bootnigger.

  9. If only this man had been the first black president

    • Amen to that. The flipside of Cambria and the others spruiking for the usurper is the ignoring and denial of immense talent that ought to be being noticed more and rewarded.

  10. Look at these banksters. Cambria’s Crew. Getting rich off our blood

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/macquaries-millionaires-factory-a-relic-as-pay-shrinks-20110323-1c6cj.html

  11. I’ve often thought that the big bang theory was created on a shaky foundation. Assuming that because galaxies appear to recede from us faster, the further they are away from us, doesn’t prove an expanding universe.

    Consider this simple thought experiment. If you have a universe with just three objects a super-massive black hole, and two stars of equal mass. The stars are far enough apart so that the effect of gravity on each other is negligible, but they are both affected by the black hole. The stars are both on one side of the black hole arranged in line with the black hole. Even though the two stars are moving in the same direction, and the size of the “universe” is shrinking, from the perspective of an observer on each of these stars, the other star would be red-shifting as the gravitational pull on the star closer to the BH always caused it to be moving faster than the one further out. For observers on the stars, who couldn’t see the black hole, it would appear that their universe was expanding as they pulled away from each other.

    Now I’m not suggesting that the universe is in anyway similar to this thought experiment model. I’m just demonstrating that the red-shifted galaxies observed by Hubble, don’t necessarily mean expansion.

  12. Right. There are any number of possible reasons for red shift. I assume that the universe is expanding, but at a pretty tepid rate. These guys break their own light speed limit by saying these galaxies are “receding” (note the obscurantist terminology) from us at faster then the speed of light, with only red shift as evidence for this. Then they reconcile the breaking of light speed by way of claiming that its space that is being created in between. Its one stupid excuse after another with the public servants.

  13. It is a curious lack of imagination and suppression of logic that science doggedly denies even the thought of infinity. Why does there have to be a beginning to the universe? What could have been there before it began? Why does there have to be a limit to the universe? What could be outside of it? If something was out side of it, couldn’t that still be considered universe? Most importantly, why are these logical questions not even regarded as legitimate to ask?

    • Exactly, Mike! I suppose it’s all a function of how we’ve viewed time (space-time) since Einstein; combined with Hubble’s observation of red-shifting galaxies. If you take from Hubble’s observations, that the universe has expanded from a singularity (big bang theory) and you take Einstein’s combining of space with time, then at the point when the big bang happened, there was no space, therefore no time.

      The weird thing is that some string theorists predict a “multiverse” that contains an infinite number of universes. I only have a PBS level of understanding of that theory, and I tend to think that modern physics is mostly tilting at windmills, but even if that is the case, wouldn’t it be useful to have something we could use to describe what separates these universes? Einstein effectively robbed us of the terms “space” and “time” to describe anything beyond our own universe.

      • And as you point out Mike, we have also been robbed of the term “universe” to describe what’s outside our “universe” So we have to come up with stupid names like “multiverse” or “omniverse”

      • such silliness to steal concepts from geometry, apply them to another subject, in error, and call it science. Hubble wasn”t much better but those that follow his erroneous doctrine now are pretty dimwitted.

      • I believe several things are at work here. Like many other professionals do, scientists create language to make their profession seem more intellectual than it really is, as well they can make theories to make their profession more complicated than it needs to be. An infinite and eternal universe theory takes that power (and funding) away by introducing a concept hard to explain, and a number (infinity) that cant be programmed into a calculator. I have heard other rumors concerning religious funding to protect some semblance of creationism alive in science via the big bang, and other wild theories. I don’t know that these are true or necessary to speculate on as laziness and career justification are motivation enough to try to keep this illusion alive. As in all things, I believe honesty and imagination is a far better approach than laziness and duplicity, which is why I am not government funded or rich.

  14. Yeah well the big bang is definitely a young universe creation myth. The most stupid one, not excluding those involving tortoises.

  15. If we ever get a realistic view of space, space travel, gravity and so forth, we break they shadow government monopoly on space travel and energy. Hence the constant lying about comets and Oort clouds and so forth. Endless lying about Mars.

  16. O geez Graeme a couple of LDP types have been elected to Council. I assume sane people. Fortunately for the rest of us you will never be in this position as you are bald, fat, ugly and unelectable. Cunt also. As well as a fuckwit.

    • Thanks for the good news. Actually you have a point. Some of the younger LDP guys can be a bit painful, yet its an extremely varied and interesting crowd, even amongst the youngsters. The founder is a big problem and probably one of the few people receiving direct or indirect conspirational backing whether he knows it or not. He can be relied on to run a 100% track record of treason on matters strategic.

      But some of the older blokes …. the ones with their own small business …. These are some of the most impressive blokes I’ve ever met. Far more impressive then the managers I met in corporate finance, and even more impressive then most of the better politicians amongst the liberals.

  17. Also, if you were in Puberty Blues would you be a Lezzo Slut or would your asshole be too tight?

    • Again you may have a point. I myself am totally ignorant of the TV show you refer to. The movie came out towards the end of my high school career, but I didn’t see it. I asked the blokes at work what a Lesbian was, and they said “Lesbians like women. They like girls” they said. So I said “If Lesbians love girls, and if Lesbians love women like the moon and the stars ….. ” then I said “….. Then I TOO …. am I Lesbian!….”

      I really really love girls and women. I think I’m suffering from some sort of condition that ought to be named. I think I’m suffering from DAUGHTER-DEPRIVATION.

  18. From an Amazon Book Review:

    Graeme Bird says:

    You didn’t fall for this bullshit did you? Bin Laden has been dead since around 2002 and he was never any implausible Dr Moriati in the first place. His whole media career is childish and proof that the overlords think we at morons.

    Graeme Bird says:

    More follow-up for this obvious hoax raid.

    The Jian says:

    Got any proof to back up what you say? You think we chased him for 10 years for nothing? Nice try. What cracks me up is he didn’t have the gumption to fight and “die” for his dumb cause. Nope, just sat there hoping we’d take him to prison…LOL. Once the shooting starts all bets are off on that. It couldn’t have worked out better in my mind. I just hope we do MUCH worse for the dead seals (without ammo? Obama’s idea of peace?) in Benghazi, Libya. We should be listening to guys like Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters. If you kill 4 of us, we kill 400 of you. Strength is the only thing these jerks understand. I can’t believe we were unarmed. Holter Graham does a pretty good job of reading the book too. The first chapter pretty much lays out that nobody will be outed, and no secrets released that can put people in harms way. Yet the Obama administration is after him (he even had a lawyer check it…LOL). GREAT BOOK, or audio cd as it were – for the lazy among us. 🙂 “this book will finally give credit to those who EARNED it!”…One of my favorite quotes. Are you listening obama?

    Graeme Bird says:

    You didn’t chase him for ten years. You didn’t chase him at all. He’s been dead the last ten years. No evidence whatsoever links him to 9/11. The entire concept of a man without state apparatus or nuclear weapons posing a national threat from the far side of the sea is idiotic. There is no functional Dr Moriati (or George Orwells “GOLDSTEIN”) concept of terrorism, where a fellow has an unexplainable network not linked to government. The entire concept and the role they had this dead person playing was ridiculous, childish, an impossible fantasy.

    The raid was just a few blocks down from the Pakistani version of West Point. The area is close to the Indian border. Valid or not Pakistan bases its entire defence posture on the idea of being on a hair trigger from an Indian attack. This is why they created the Taliban so they could have an allied country to swing backwards into for purposes of “defence-in-depth.” So the idea that Americans could be running military operations right next to the Paki West Point is simply farcical. For starters were it true it could be taken for an Indian attack, and nuclear missiles could be put on high alert. Whereas because it was a fake piece of theatre, this is exactly where the Paki’s would wish for the dog and pony show to go ahead for maximum control on their part. The locals don’t believe the raid was real.

    Pictures of Bin Laden were clear fakes, as if a strict fanatical Muslim would die his hair. The Shadow Government (blowing smoke) photo-shopped Barack Obama’s ears onto Osama Bin Laden, so someone isn’t even serious about running a powerfully authentic piece of fakery. The bullshit story that they deep-sixed the body is clearly cover for the fact that they never had Bin Laden’s body. They claimed they got DNA evidence before they deep-sixed the body like common Cosa Nostra lunk-headed jerks, but thats a lie too because DNA tests take longer.
    …. shall I go on?

  19. Graeme Bird says:
    “If you kill 4 of us, we kill 400 of you.”

    I agree with that. So you’ve got to start killing members of the money-creation/covert-operations network. That is to say the “shadow government.” You have the legislation and the precedent to at least start arresting them, renditioning them, putting them in stress positions and making them talk. There are plenty of people involved with 9/11 that you could be rounding up or killing right now. Silverstein comes to mind. Juliani has questions to answer. Stick with your principles. Kissinger is in with that crowd and must answer questions. The leading lights of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers can be subpoenaed and/or extradited. Central banks around the world can be raided, their hard drives siezed, the people turfed out of their offices, their paper-shredders smashed, their corporate booze cabinets emptied by the raiders.

    Go with your professed beliefs. But its not Muslims you are after, because the idea that Muslims had anything to do with 9/ll is simply an Arab blood libel, and is demonstrably false.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: